|
|
Home » City Government » Council » Minutes Archives; 2000 - 2003 » 2002 Council Minutes » July 2, 2002
July 2, 2002
The Lindon City Council held a regularly scheduled meeting beginning at 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, July 2, 2002, in the Lindon City Center Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
Pledge of Allegiance: Jerald I. Hatch
Invocation: Ott Dameron
PRESENT ABSENT
Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor Jeff Acerson, Councilmember
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember H. Toby Bath, Councilmember
James A. Dain, Councilmember
Jerald I. Hatch, Councilmember
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
The Meeting began at 7:06 P.M.
MINUTES
Review of the Minutes of the meetings of May 28, 2002 and June 18, 2002.
The Minutes of the meeting of May 28, 2002 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 1, Line 35: Add the word “be” after the word “must.”
Page 2, Line 43: Replace the word “is” with the word “in.”
Page 3, Line 1: Replace the word “is” with the word “are.”
Page 3, Line 8: Add the words “was held” after the word “discussion.”
Page 5, Line 34: Replace the word “a” with the word “an.”
Page 6, Line 1: Replace the word “and” with the word “or.”
Page 7, Line 43: Replace the word “have” with the word “had.” Replace the word “will” with the word “should.”
Page 8, Line 24,25: Add the parenthetical phrase “(below State Street) ” after the word “zone.”
Page 9, Line 8,9: Add the sentence “Final design of the chapel made the walkway unfeasible.”
Page 11, Line 19,20: Add the sentence “Mr. Dameron commented that the item would be added to the budget.”
Page 11, Line 30: Replace the word “of” with the word “to.” Add the phrase “for public safety services” after the name “Pleasant Grove.”
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MAY 28, 2002 AS CORRECTED. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
The Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of June 18, 2002 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 1, Lines 27, 34: Replace the name “Dehoyas” with the name “De Hoyas.”
Page 2, Lines 2, 12,
15, 21, 25,
28, 30, 35,
39, 43: Replace the name “Dehoyas” with the name “De Hoyas.”
Page 2, Line 12, 13: Add the phrase “which is approximately 50% of the retail cost” after the word “customer.”
Page 2, Line 13, 14: Replace the phrase “is about 50% above that” with the words “will be.”
Page 3, Line 2: Replace the name “Dehoyas” with the name “De Hoyas.”
Page 3, Line 35: Add the phrase “and a token of appreciation (gift certificate to Outback Steak House)” after the word “certificate.”
Page 6, Line 21: Replace the word “weeks” with the word “week.”
Page 13, Line 37,38: Replace the word “temporary” with the words “price of a.” Replace the word “price” with the words “for a temporary business.”
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF JUNE 18, 2002 AS CORRECTED. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
OPEN SESSION - Citizens comments
Mike Anderson, of 455 East 200 North, presented a plan for a senior living community on property between Gillman Lane and Lakeview Road. His proposal consisted of some 20,000 square foot lots and two R2 Overlay projects. He asked the Council’s general opinion of this plan that would include a large assisted living home that may occupy two of the lots. He told the Council that he had presented his plan to the neighbors. He also noted that he would like individual homes on individual lots for the R2 Overlay part of the proposal. Councilmember Dain disclosed that the ordinance does not allow dividing into smaller lots than the zone requires, however, the houses can be separated and owned individually. Mr. Anderson mentioned that financing may be harder to obtain this way. Mr. Dameron commented that if smaller lots are allowed, the ramifications go far beyond this project and would affect the city-wide general plan and zoning ordinances. He expressed the opinion that the Council could not solve this problem tonight. Mr. Anderson asked for an opinion on the assisted living portion of the plan. Mayor Ellertson replied that if the proposal fits the guidelines in the ordinances, it will be considered. Mr. Smith observed that group homes are covered under Section 17.70 of the Lindon City Code. It was noted that some of the neighbors had written letters to the Council opposing this development.
Mayor Ellertson asked if there was other public comment. There was none.
MAYOR’S COMMENTS AND REPORT
Mayor Ellertson asked if there were any questions. There were none.
CONSENT AGENDA - No items
CURRENT BUSINESS
1. Continued Public Hearing - Ordinance to Amend and Adopt Impact Fees. This is a continued public hearing from the meeting of June 18, 2002. The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve an ordinance which will update city-wide impact fees for culinary water, parks and recreation, and sewer; and adopt a new streets impact fee for the area around and impacted by the new I-15 Interchange. Lewis, Young, Robertson, and Burningham (financial consultants) have completed the study for this proposed action and will be present to answer questions.
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO OPEN THE FOUR FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Jason Burningham and Elise Christensen were present to represent Lewis, Young, Robertson and Burningham. Mr. Burningham commented that the City had asked his firm to assess the I-15 Interchange project area for street and transportation costs. He informed the Council that Ms. Christensen had worked primarily on assessing the street impact and could answer questions concerning this study. He added that this initial study is in general form for feedback from the City, to resolve issues, refine the study and then go through the public hearing process. Mr. Burningham had a prepared slide presentation to summarize the impact fee studies. He observed that the intent of impact fees is to equitably recover the costs of growth related infrastructure. He explained that an impact fee is a one time fee that is used to build capacity in the City water, sewer, parks, street, and in come some cases public safety systems. Mr. Burningham noted that the state-wide basis in law for impact fees was adopted as Title 11 and that significant changes have been made in this section of the Utah Code since adoption.
Mr. Burningham reviewed the impact fee studies. He explained that the types of costs that may be recovered through impact fees are revenue bond costs, future expansion and improvement project costs, interest costs of financed projects, and costs for professional services related to those projects, such as engineering fees and consultant fees. A unit of measurement is calculated as an “equivalent residential unit” or ERU. The ERU is the proportional share of cost divided by the capacity of the project. Mr. Burningham explained that there are two service areas (covered in the two reports) that have been examined. The first report covers the I-15 streets service area. The map of the service area was shown as the area within the red-dashed line and encompasses generally non-residential land.
Ms. Christensen explained that the ERU for the streets impact fee is “trip-based” and is recommended at $56.98 per trip. Mayor Ellertson asked how “trips” are calculated. Mr. Burningham explained that “trips” are generated from traffic surveys nationally and from a City Engineer traffic survey to determine the ultimate capacity over the next 20 years. “Trip Ends” are based on the size of the building constructed to service a particular type of business. Councilmember Dain asked if the “trips per 1000 square foot” method was universal around the country. Mr. Burningham replied that the method is universal, however, some businesses will have to be categorized as they will not fit the general types used in the reference.
The impact fees that may be charged to various types of businesses were discussed. Mr. Burningham commented that the guidelines in the trip generation books are more detailed than those shown here, and are used unless a developer justifies something else. The procedures for contesting an impact fee evaluation were discussed. Mr. Burningham explained that the onus is on the property owner to prove the differences between his proposed business and those in the technical appendices. Mayor Ellertson asked if a per acre basis would be easier to administer. He also noted that as development occurs there are more costs that are not figured in the original impact fees. Mr. Burningham replied that, for this type of fee, land use is more defendable. He explained that if every use of the land has the same demand on the streets, then the “per acre” fee can be defended.
The costs associated with the service area were discussed. Mayor Ellertson verified that this study took into account only the costs for street improvements for Lindon as some of the street improvements for the I-15 Interchange are in Pleasant Grove. Mr. Burningham confirmed that this was taken into account and added that some future costs have been anticipated. Mayor Ellertson observed that these anticipated costs were originally higher, and now are not as high because of some grant funding. Mr. Burningham replied that this has been accounted for also. He commented that Pleasant Grove’s proposed impact fee is about 50% higher per trip because of their aggressive capital projects schedule.
The trip generation chart was examined again and adjustment factors were explained. Discussion was held on the procedures for changes in the trip generation chart. Mayor Ellertson observed that Lindon may need to consider development discounts. Mr. Burningham commented that any business that is determined to be of general benefit to the community can have their impact fees waived or reduced in favor of future sales taxes or other benefits.
Councilmember Dain noted that the recommended impact fee is the maximum that can be charged and can possibly be lowered to accommodate development. Mr. Burningham agreed. Councilmember Dain commented that the difficulty in waiving fees is deciding who get a waiver and who doesn’t. Mr. Burningham agreed and noted that general practice is that the first big project gets a waiver and others following do not. Mr. Dameron inserted that he recommended that the public hearing be continued to allow the next fourteen days for review of these impact fee studies.
Mr. Burningham addressed the city-wide service area discussed in study two. He noted that the city-wide service area covers the services of culinary water, sewer and parks. He observed that the recommended fee for culinary water is reduced slightly from the present fee. The costs included in the determination of the ERU were shown. Mr. Burningham commented that the recommended sewer impact fee is significantly more because of planned expansion of this system. He noted that the parks ERU is determined by the present service level of 6 acres of parkland per thousand residents.
Mayor Ellertson commented that the study implies about 54 acres of completed parks. Ms. Christensen directed the Council’s attention to the chart of page 49 of the study that details the park land in possession of the city and the future plans taken into account for purposes of this study. Development costs for parks were discussed. Councilmember Dain noted that the proposed recreation center is specifically mentioned in this list. He asked if this would tie the hand of a future council to complete this project. Mr. Burningham replied that this list enumerates the types of projects that may be constructed with the impact fee funds. The Council has the final determination of how the funds are used, however, funds cannot be used to construct a project not anticipated in the capital facilities plan used to assess impact fees. Mayor Ellertson asked how a facility used partly by existing residents and some by future residents is figured into the determination of the impact fee. Mr. Burningham replied that this is taken into account if the city decided to maintain the current level of service to their residents. Councilmember Bayless complimented Mr. Burningham and Ms. Christensen for their clear and understandable presentation.
Mayor Ellertson asked if there were questions. Mr. Ron Anderson of Anderson Lane asked about the I-15 impact area map. He was concerned that some areas which would derive benefits from the improved service were not included in the impact area. Mr. Burningham agreed that there may be more of the City that would benefit than the area shown in the service area, but the service area shown is the area that is most likely to develop and will receive primary benefits. Mayor Ellertson mentioned that he also had questions on the service area.
Mr. Burningham observed that one of the considerations the Council may want to discuss is to lower the impact fees from the level recommended then use the sales tax generated to help repay the city for the costs of growth related improvements. Mayor Ellertson mentioned that the method of financing for the streets will have a bearing on the impact fees. He commented that the streets service area map needs a possible review. He suggested that the developed and non-developed parks be separated to determine the addition of development costs of the land to the purchase price. Councilmember Dain observed that a sewer rate increase may have the same effect as an impact fee. Mr. Dameron suggested a work session before the meeting on July 16, 2002 to discuss these items. He noted that a discrepancy between the study’s sewer impact fee and the proposed ordinance also needs resolution.
Mr. Burningham summarized the items that need further discussion. He noted that a re-evaulation of the service area for I-15 is needed. He added that there may be outside impacts to consider that may help defray costs. He commented that the Council may wish to review the trip generation statistics. He observed that a paragraph may be added that would adjust the impact fees if other financing sources were used. Mayor Ellertson added that refunds may need to be considered here also. Mr. Burningham agreed. He noted that developed parks versus undeveloped parks should also be compared and determine how their costs differ. Mayor Ellertson suggested that some park land had been bought for future growth and that may have an impact on the level of service. Mr. Burningham thanked the Council for their comments. Mayor Ellertson asked if there was public comment. There was none.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND ADOPT IMPACT FEES TO JULY 16, 2002. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - R2 Overlay - Chapter 17.46 (Ordinance #2002-18). The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve an ordinance which amends Chapter 17.46 - R2 Overlay Zone - of the Lindon City Code, which will restrict homeowner’s associations from preempting the requirements of this ordinance, adopt a new R2 Overlay Map with 17 Districts instead of 19, require notices to neighbors to include an informational brochure, amend parking requirements for twin homes, and add new language concerning second kitchen accesses. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
Mr. Smith displayed the proposed map amendment to the R2 Overlay Districts. Councilmember Bayless observed that recent zone changes have impacted the R2- Overlay districts. Councilmember Hatch commented that not combining Districts 15 and 16 was possibly not fair to the citizens residing in District 16. Mr. Smith explained that the original District map contained 19 districts. This amended map removes parcels that have been zoned commercial near 600 South, 700 North and State Street.
Councilmember Bayless asked a question about a property approved as an owner-occupied accessory apartment, but which is occasionally used as a duplex. Mr. Smith replied that owner-occupied apartments have an affidavit filed in the county records that informs owners that the home must be owner occupied. He noted that there are few complaints, but if a complaint is received, the owner is contacted. Mayor Ellertson asked what the enforcement is for the owner-occupied accessory apartment ordinance. Mr. Smith replied that it is a Class C misdemeanor.
Mr. Smith noted that accessory apartments don’t count for the 750 foot separation rule in the R2 Overlay ordinance. Councilmember Dain asked what would happen if District 15 was combined with District 16. It was determined that the neighborhood would qualify to have one more duplex on the corner of 400 West and 200 South. If District 15 is kept separate from District 16, the 4% rule makes District 15 full.
Mayor Ellertson questioned the irregular sizes and shapes of the Districts and wondered why the Districts were not more evenly distributed. Councilmember Dain noted that some districts have changed because of zone changes. Mr. Smith added that another reason is that some areas are impacted by a large project, like Green Valley Condos in District 11, and if the boundaries are changed then developers can add more units to that neighborhood. Mayor Ellertson verified that accessory apartments are counted in the unit total of a District, but not in the distance separation requirement.
Councilmember Dain suggested that if the intent of the R2 Overlay ordinance is to allow some density with the least amount of impact to the neighborhoods, then why not combine the districts that are overfull with neighboring districts that still have units available. Mr. Smith replied that this proposal would restrict the number of units still available in Lindon, but wondered if the Council wanted the ability to add more units. Councilmember Bayless commented that, in most cases, the units provided do not meet the standards for moderate income housing. Mr. Smith agreed that the units provide opportunities for rentals and not ownership, but they do meet the median housing standards by providing a variety of housing. The standards of moderate income housing were discussed.
Councilmember Dain verified with Mr. Smith that rental duplexes meet the moderate housing guidelines. Mr. Smith replied that they do. He added that if the Council’s objective is to provide more moderate income housing, then add more duplexes; if the objective is to fill the Districts, then change the boundaries. The Council discussed District boundaries and the rationale for changing these boundaries. Councilmember Dain suggested combining Districts 7 and 11 because both were full already. Mayor Ellertson observed that District 15 is too small on an acreage basis compared to the other Districts. Mr. Dameron commented that the current map and ordinance have served the city well in the past. He suggested that District 15 be left the same. The Planning Commission’s recommendation to leave District 15 because of the impacts of commercial development, heavy traffic and other R2 projects on the neighborhood was discussed. Councilmember Hatch suggested combining Districts 14 and 15 because both of these districts are full, rather than 15 and 16 which would leave more units available. This was discussed and consensus was reached to combine Districts 14 and 15. It was decided to leave Districts 7 and 11 as is.
Mr. Smith turned the discussion to the revisions in the ordinance. He noted the addition of the statement that R2 projects are conditional uses so they may be reviewed upon complaint. He also reviewed the addition of the statement that preempts C, C & R’s from “trumping” the R2 ordinance. He added that he had reviewed the clause with the City Attorney. Councilmember Hatch asked about C, C & R’s restricting other ordinances, such as the animal ordinance. Mr. Smith replied that this is considered a core value of Lindon rather than a State-mandated compliance issue. Mr. Dameron asked how many homeowners’ associations there are in Lindon. This was discussed.
Mr. Smith pointed out another change that removes the number of Districts in the language of the ordinance and just refers to the adopted map. Mayor Ellertson noted the removal of a “fourplex” from the language of the ordinance. Mr. Smith explained that the smaller buildings of two triplexes in a project, rather than a fourplex and a duplex were more favored by the Planning Commission. He informed the Council that the Informational Brochure referred to in the new language is about half done and would be reviewed at a later date. He noted a change in parking requirements for twin homes and discussed the intent of the Planning Commission in recommending the reduction from 2 ½ parking spaces per unit to 2 parking spaces per unit.
Mayor Ellertson asked why twin homes are unique in their parking requirements. Mr. Smith explained that the requirement for the additional half a space creates an odd parking space on the side of a home. This is more parking than required for a regular residential home and creates an aesthetic problem. This was discussed. Mayor Ellertson confirmed that there would be no off street parking provided for guests in twin home construction.
Mr. Smith noted the final amendment as a change in the requirement for doors between a second kitchen and the main living areas of a home. He explained that in the past any obstacle between the kitchen and the main living areas of the home was considered to create an accessory apartment rather than a second kitchen. It was considered an attempt on the part of a landowner to skirt the accessory apartment requirements and impact fees. It is felt now that a door may be needed for safety reasons, so the restriction is changed to be no lockable door.
Mayor Ellertson asked about the deletion of the one front door requirement in clause “A.” Mr. Smith explained that the door to an accessory apartment needs to be on the side or back of a home, not in the front. However, sometimes a regular home has a second door on the front. Mayor Ellertson asked about electrical meters for an accessory apartment and a second kitchen. Mr. Smith explained that a homeowner usually has one meter for both situations and recoups the electrical bill as part of the rent for an accessory apartment. Mayor Ellertson asked if there was further public comment. There was none.
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 2002-18, THE REVISION AND AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 17.46 - R2 OVERLAY, OF THE LINDON CITY CODE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. HE ALSO MOVED TO APPROVE THE LINDON CITY R2 OVERLAY DISTRICT MAP WITH THE CHANGE MADE TO COMBINE DISTRICTS 14 AND 15 AND RENUMBERING OF THE REMAINING DISTRICTS TO A TOTAL OF 16 R2 OVERLAY DISTRICTS. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBER BATH ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR (3-0) WITH TWO COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT. THE MOTION CARRIED.
3. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - Inoperable Vehicles and Vehicle Storage - Chapter 17.06 (Ordinance #2002-19). The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve an ordinance which amends Section 17.06 - Inoperable Vehicles and Vehicle Storage - of the Lindon City Code, which will clarify definitions and enforcement options available to staff. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
Mayor Ellertson expressed concern over the proposed definition of a vehicle. This was discussed and it was decided that this concern has not been an issue in the past and is unlikely to become one in the future. Mr. Smith observed that this ordinance amendment is a clarification of the ordinance so that what is considered an “inoperable vehicle” is clear. Councilmember Hatch asked how the ordinance will be applied. Mr. Smith replied that the ordinance will be enforceable upon complaint from the neighbors. Councilmember Hatch expressed concern that the ordinance may be “nitpicking people off their property.” Mr. Smith explained that most complaints come when someone is attempting to sell their home and a buyer complains of the state of the homes in the neighborhood.
Mayor Ellertson commented that if a vehicle appears to be an operable vehicle, then there will probably be no complaint. Mr. Smith agreed and added that if a homeowner keeps a stored vehicle out of sight in a garage or other covered storage area, there will probably be no complaints also. He related Commissioner Peters’ concerns and the discussions of the Planning Commission concerning classic vehicles under restoration.
Councilmember Dain asked the reasons that residents complain of stored vehicles in their neighbor’s property. Mr. Smith replied that aesthetics are the major reason for complaints. Mayor Ellertson noted that there are two sections on vehicle storage, one for residential and the other for non-residential in which the requirements are similar. He asked about the ten vehicles referred to in the non-residential section. Mr. Smith explained that this clause appears in the previous code section with the only change being the extension of the time limit from 24 hours to 72 hours. Mayor Ellertson asked if there were questions or public comment. There were none. He noted that paragraph #4 of section 17.06.040 allows some leeway.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE #2002-19, AN AMENDMENT AND REVISION OF CHAPTER 17.06 - INOPERABLE VEHICLES AND VEHICLE STORAGE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBER BATH ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR (3-0) WITH TWO COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT. THE MOTION CARRIED.
4. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - Signs - Chapter 18. This item has been placed on the agenda because it was advertised for a public hearing. However, the Planning Commission has yet to formulate a recommendation to the Council. The Council should move to continue the Public Hearing until a recommendation is forwarded from the Planning Commission.
Mayor Ellertson asked if there was public comment. There was none. After discussion, COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM, AN AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 18 - SIGNS, OF THE LINDON CITY CODE UNTIL A RECOMMENDATION IS MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. Review and Action - Payback Agreements with 60 North Street Residents. During the construction process of the rehabilitation of 60 North Street (east of 400 West), several of the residents along this street requested the city consider installing curb, gutter, and sidewalk where it does not currently exist. Several affected residents attended a neighborhood meeting on Thursday, June 27, 2002 where four of the property owners without these improvements agreed to pay back the city for these costs if the city would “up-front” the funds to complete the project. The process would involve individual payback agreements with these property owners. The agreements would then be recorded with the County as an attachment to their properties until paid. The City Council is being asked to approve the funding and to set the term and interest rate of the payback. Staff recommends approval with funds coming from the reserves of the city.
Mayor Ellertson asked if the neighbors were in agreement. Mr. Dameron replied that there were four residents in the neighborhood who would be interested in this agreement. He noted that staff recommends the proposal and asks that the Council set the term and interest rate. The recommendation from staff is 6% interest over 10 years with no prepayment penalty. Councilmember Bayless asked if this would complete the sidewalk, curb and gutter on the street. Mr. Dameron replied that this would complete the street itself, but not the end of the cul-de-sac. Mayor Ellertson observed that this action would commit city resources and financing. He added that it is a cash flow issue. The Council discussed the lots affected and the average cost per lot. Mayor Ellertson asked if there were questions. Mr. Harlow Clark asked how this would change the neighborhood. This was explained.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE FUNDING REQUEST AND THE PAYBACK AGREEMENTS AS DISCUSSED WITH 6% INTEREST ON A MAXIMUM 10 YEAR LOAN. COUNCILMEMBER DAIN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBER BATH ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR (3-0) WITH TWO COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT. THE MOTION CARRIED.
6. Review and Action - Preliminary Plat - Canberra Heights, Plat “F”. This is a request by Canberra Development Company for approval of a new Plat “F”, 2 lots, R1-12 zone in Canberra Heights Subdivision at 150 South Dry Canyon Drive. This new plat would remove a potential road from Plat “B” and incorporate the property into the two adjacent lots. In order to effect this change, Canberra Heights Plat “B,” lots 38 and 39 will need to be vacated and Canberra Heights Plat “F,” lots 44 and 45 will need to be approved. The Planning Commission has recommended approval.
Mayor Ellertson confirmed that this is a request to remove a road and add the land into the adjoining lots. Councilmember Dain asked if the road was needed for fire access. Mr. Smith showed the fire access to the area. He noted that the road to be removed was private access for future development only and is not needed now.
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY CANBERRA DEVELOPMENT FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CANBERRA HEIGHTS, PLAT “F,” A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION AND AMENDMENT TO CANBERRA HEIGHTS PLAT “B,” LOTS 38 AND 39 AT APPROXIMATELY 150 SOUTH DRY CANYON DRIVE. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
7. Review and Action - Preliminary Assessment Report and Feasibility Study - UTOPIA. The City Council received the Preliminary Assessment Report prepared by Dynamic City on behalf of UTOPIA for Lindon City during the meeting of June 18, 2002. This report stated that the city appeared to be a good candidate for moving into the feasibility phase of the project. The City Council may act tonight to proceed with the feasibility study as the second step in this process. The project consists of providing fiber optic cable network to all homes and businesses within the UTOPIA member cities.
The Council discussed the number of Councilmembers missing from this meeting and decided to continue the discussion until more were available. Mayor Ellertson asked when a decision is needed. August 1, 2002 was determined to be the deadline.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION OF THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT REPORT BY DYNAMIC CITY ON BEHALF OF UTOPIA (UTAH TELECOMMUNICATIONS OPEN INFRASTRUCTURE AGENCY) UNTIL JULY 16, 2002. COUNCILMEMBER DAIN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
WATER, GENERAL PLAN, BUILDING INSPECTION, ENGINEERING
Councilmember Dain asked how Lindon residents were doing on conserving water. Mr. Dameron reported that Public Works Director Don Peterson was presently ordering 4 cfs (cubic feet per second) a week to be delivered by the Alpine Reach Aqueduct. So far, no pumping from the 200 South Pump Station has been required and the Cobbley water has not been tapped. Mayor Ellertson mentioned that Utah Power and Light has a savings program for not running pumps. Mr. Dameron replied that he would asked ask the power company about the program. Councilmember Dain mentioned that he had talked with Miles Batty of Lindon Pumping Company who will be getting in touch with the State Engineer to “prove up” on the water owned by Lindon Pumping Company.
SEWER, SOLID WASTE, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PROPERTIES
Councilmember Hatch commented on the letter received from the Timpanogos Special Service District requesting an odor easement. He mentioned that if the District does not do the composting, this extra material will come to the North Point Transfer Station for disposal. This may create an odor problem there. He added that it may be to Lindon’s benefit to consider the odor easement for Timpanogos District. The request was discussed and it was disclosed that the Timpanogos District is suggesting a virtual no-building zone as part of the odor easement.
Councilmember Hatch reported on a watering violation and mentioned that it may be a malfunction of a timer because of a power outage. He also reported on the tipping fee issue for the transfer district. It was discussed and decided to request the transfer district to copy send Lindon City on a copy of all billings addressed to BFI concerning hauling of garbage within Lindon City boundaries. Mr. Clark asked what advantage the City may derive from this information. Councilmember Hatch replied that it would give the City and the Transfer Station some idea of where BFI is hauling the garbage from to.
Councilmember Hatch asked if the City was taking overburden extra material to the area where the City has some material overburden stockpiled just off 2000 West. Mr. Dameron replied no, that the asphalt for the street rehabilitation project was being rotomilled on site. Councilmember Hatch reported that someone was using Lindon’s storage site. Mr. Dameron replied that he would check with Mr. Peterson.
TRAILS, PLANNING, ZONING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ADMINISTRATION
Councilmember Bayless reported on her communication with county commission members on potential fines for illegal foothill access of the foothills by motorized vehicles. The concept was discussed. Recent fires were also discussed.
STREETS, SIDEWALKS, PUBLIC SAFETY AND COURT
Councilmember Bath was excused.
PARKS, RECREATION, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, LINDON FAIR, NEWSLETTER
Councilmember Acerson was excused.
ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
Mr. Dameron:
1. Reported on the most recent UTOPIA board meeting. He reported that Sandy City has elected not to proceed with the project. The reasons were disclosed and discussed. There was also discussion on the reimbursement of city investment into the preliminary and feasibility studies. Mr. Dameron explained that the reimbursements will occur when the bonding is obtained and paid to those cities who are the remaining feasible members. The philosophy voiced in the meeting is that the residents of the remaining member cities would be paying for the studies of those cities determined to be not feasible if all cities (feasible and non-feasible) participating were to be reimbursed. There was discussion of the possibly unequal wholesale rate to cities. Mr. Dameron noted that the Dynamic City worksheets show Lindon feasible even at a 30% take rate. Lindon, Cedar Hills and Perry are just barely feasible at this take rate. There was a discussion on taking subscriptions and legislation before the State House of Representatives.
2. Asked if there were any applications on the project tracking list that the Council would like to review. Councilmember Hatch expressed interest in the indoor soccer arena. It was decided that this application would not be reviewed by the Council.
3. Presented a thank you letter from BFI that also mentions recycling.
4. Noted that a copy of a memo from Jared Frei at the City Attorney’s office was in the packets explaining the steps needed to increase the certified tax rate. He added that the County Auditor’s office needs to be informed by July 12, 2002 if the City intends to go through the process of “Truth in Taxation” because they set the public hearing dates. Mayor Ellertson commented that the amount involved is not significant per household, but means a lot to the city. Mr. Dameron informed the Council that he would keep them informed on public opinion as it comes in.
5. Asked the Council to continue thinking of recommendations for a Volunteer Coordinator.
6. Informed the Council that Questar Gas will no longer be doing residential and commercial “in-the-building” inspections. This will now be the city inspector’s responsibility.
7. Displayed the new newsletter format.
Mayor Ellertson commented on the search for Elizabeth Smart. He asked that residents be alert to signs that she may be present in Lindon. He also confirmed with Mr. Dameron that the payment for Lindon’s portion of the transportation consultant to MAG was approved in the budget.
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE PAY VOUCHERS. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 11:15 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED - July 16, 2002
_______________________________________
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator/Recorder
_______________________________________
Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor |
|
|
